release showing how effective the campaign is. in one year, virginia created 130 new locations and had an increase of 23% in the amount of meals served. there is no question the program had a big impact, but that is just the first step. in virginia, there are 320,000 children who do not have access to good, nutritious food. there are about 16 million children across the country you are in danger if you look at the federal guidelines who do not have daily access to food. that is why it is important we not only look at the issues but, with a long-term solution. i would like to thank each of the governors and i applaud you

for your efforts today. this is an ongoing challenge for the committee and the country, but one thing that is clear to everyone sitting in this room is that there is not one state, agency or community service group that can address all the challenges here. we're going to have to work altogether. working together, i believe we can end the war on hunger and we owe it to our children to try. we look forward to seeing you in williamsburg in a few months. >> any questions or comments from members of the committee? sounds to me like you have convinced and encourage them to continue this fight and put this in their respective states.

a lot of people don't even think about the fact that there are folks down the street who go hungry. by making it a top priority and bringing public awareness into its and then the outside help you are able to provide with your collaborative efforts, we can make a big dent in this. your support for this issue is greatly appreciated. anything else? >> i am not precisely sure of the logistical relationship with school cafeterias. it is not clear from the materials we have and i wonder if you could just run that down of a little bit.

is it connected through some of the other programs? >> we are working in hawaii to get the food bank connected and making sure we are donating food locally. the work on breakfast has been primarily philanthropic and has been a competitive basis but we have tried a lot of different models, from incentives that provides schools $1,000 to really collaborative working across multiple organizations to remove barriers. in little rock, we see work between the food program and school district. all of the teachers are getting behind it along with the principles because there are logistical things like changing the bus routes to do this and

making sure there is an efficient process and the classroom, it takes a real collaboration to do that. >> are you expected to make deliveries? do you have a separate tracking system or if this is an institutional situation -- i wondered how -- what are the actual logistics of making it work? >> ours is investment in their capacity because we are not the provider they order from. the secretary talked about barriers like equipment.

it has been things like working with the district, identifying the equipment and model they want to pursue or rolling coolers to deliver to the classrooms and serve a hot breakfast. identify the infrastructure that is needed so that they can do it for themselves each day -- it is a philanthropic investments. >> thank you very much. i am going to pay some particular attention to this. >> we are leaving the conference now to bring you to georgia where newt gingrich has just been introduced and is about to speak. [applause]

[laughter] >> you know, when you have an introduction like that, probably the wisest thing is to say thank-you and sit down. that was remarkable. [applause] i am not going to process to achieve anything like that in the next few months, but i have a better understanding of how he built the church at this point. let me say that i am really thrilled that we have a pure, young people from the christian

academy. i believe they personify three principles we ought to start with to talk about where we are and what we are doing. the first is, at its best, and the election and a free society should be worthy of the young people who are going to be our future. the fact is, all too often -- the next time you see one of these vicious, negative ads, ask yourself, why would they do that when we have a chance to have an honest, positive conversation about what we to get done to help cn people of america have a better future? [applause] second coppola the fact that they go to a christian academy is a good reminder of what the

founding fathers had in mind. the northwest ordinance was written by the original congress of the confederation to help organize ohio, illinois, indiana, michigan and part of wisconsin. it said, religion, morality, and knowledge, being important in these schools, this was brought to my attention in a -- when one of our secular, anti-religious staff edited it to take out the first three words and put up knowledge being important. but that is not what the founding fathers wrote. they wrote religion, morality, and knowledge, being important. they would have always said if you have to choose between character and memorizing, pick

character. character shapes the person for a lifetime. all too often, our modern school system and its anti-religious bias teaches a situation ethics lack of any kind of values approach which is leading more and more people to seek an alternative education that fits the values of the founding fathers by getting us back to religion and morality as two of the three benchmarks on which we build education. i am delighted they are having a chance to grow up in a context that fits the founding fathers. third, we will be deciding, i think, this fall, what kind of america they are going to grow up in. we face today the most radical -- the most radical president in american history. [applause]

i think his vision of america, the values he believes in and the way in which he interprets reality all resent a radically different future from what the founding fathers had in mind. this is george washington's commander in chief penn. this is the flag washington flew at valley ford at his command post. washington was the commander of the american army for eight long years. he was in the field against the greatest empire in the world. when the constitutional convention met, they asked him to preside over it. when they wrote to president

will be the commander in chief, they have a very good understanding of the word because they were presided over by somebody for eight years to had been a commander in chief. let me just say a couple of things about being a commander- in-chief. when the men and women who served under you are killed, you do not apologize to the enemy. [applause] when you have enemies who are determined to try to kill you, you owe it to the american people to tell the truth about the people who are opposing us.

we have been systematically and methodically misled -- this much deeper than obama. we had the same problem with the state department under bush. there is a willful refusal to be honest about the people who want to kill us. we need to have an honest discussion. when churches are burned in nigeria, do we get an apology? nope. when churches are burned in malaysia, do we get an apology? know. when churches are burned in egypt, do we get an apology? when the saudis refused to allow lecture course of a dog in their entire country, do we complete our religious bigotry? -- refused to allow a church or synagogue in their entire country. how can we call that a victory? how can we feel good about that

experience when a christian minister in iran is sentenced to death as he was last week, where is our government? what complaint are we making? what are we doing about religious bigotry? when a government we are sustaining with soldiers who we are paying, equipping, and training, kills young americans, we have a president who apologizes? this is disgraceful. this is exactly the wrong thing to do. [applause] if this election were about nothing else, it should be about the choice between strength and appeasement, between standing up for our young men and women in uniform and apologizing to enemies.

between telling the truth about those who want to destroy us and being afraid to even look the trees in the face. but this election is about much more than that. this is the most anti-religious administration in history and it's not just were on the catholic church. they tried to redefine what a religious person was and they were so off the mark that the supreme court voted 9-0. when you get the liberals on the supreme court telling you that you are wrong, do you realize how wrong obama has to be to lose 9-0? [applause] i want to promise all the on the very first day, if you help me, if i end up as the nominee, if i

become president, this is up to got of the american people, i don't to be presumptuous. if it happens, on the very first day, shortly after the inaugural address, i will sign an executive order which repeals every single anti-religious acts of bigotry by this administration. [applause] let's be very clear. the leet media has done everything they could recently to totally distort what is at stake. this is not a fight over a woman's right to contraception. this is a fight over whether the government can impose on a religious institution. this is what the founding fathers understood and why they

fought over the tax on tea. it wasn't that a tax cut that much. it established the principle that they were slaves for the british parliament to do whatever they wanted without their voice and they said no, we will not become slaves. we are prepared to stand for what we believe in because that is the cost of freedom. [applause] what is at stake in this fight is the principles. if obama can tell you what insurance you have to buy, he can tell you a car you should drive. if he can tell you in your church is allowed to do, where does it stop? he will tell you what words we are not allowed to use because they will say it's a hate crime to describe someone accurately wants to kill you. by the way, this not for me. this is centralized planning

that leads to district -- to dictatorship. this is george orwell -- he does not put it in moscow. the greatest novel ever written about totalitarianism is in london and it's because he, although he was a socialist, he had come to believe centralized planning led to dictatorship and the dictatorship started with your mind. they could not afford to let you know the truth. that is the kind of fight we are in today. we are in it as much with the elite media and academic world and judges as we are with barack obama. every one of those groups has people in them who would gladly live in a country that have forgotten where our roots came from. i got involved in this in 2002 when the ninth circuit court ruled one nation under god and the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. i decided that was such an

anti-american decision, so profoundly aimed at the core of our being that somebody had to start doing something. on my web site, you'll find a paper on how to rebalance the judiciary based on nine years of work. i take this stuff seriously. i'm tired of the 50-year offensive which has tried to drive got out of our lives -- tried to drive at it -- tried to drive god out of our lives. we did a movie called 9--- nine days that change the world. it's amazing. do you realize the polish communist dictatorship would not allow prayer in school? think about a government so anti

religious that would not allow prayer in school. do you realize the polish communist dictatorship kept tearing down crosses. think about a government that would, for example, say the cross in san diego had to come down. at the cross erected in 1934 by the vfw had to come down. we should not kid ourselves. we are ready crossroads in american history. we are at a crossroads in defining who we are. we are the people whose creators created america. it was an idea and they said we hold these truths to be self- evident, not a theory, not a philosophy. they sought to understand what god's truth was. they were all created equal, which was a radical idea. we did not always live up to it.

we had slavery and women had a secondary role for a long time. but for 225 years, we have worked toward this ideal and we are today, the most open society to ever allow people to participate and pursue happiness matter where they come from or what their background is, when they become americans, they have enormous opportunity they did not have back home. [applause] they went on to say the principle of american essentialism, something i am confident barack obama does not understand or believe -- we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, on which our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. this is vital at three levels. the founding fathers asserted

got is each one of you personally, sovereignty. power comes from god to you and and you loan power to the government. the government never loans power to you. this is the opposite of the obama model. obama believes in the european system where the government is the center of power and we are merely subjects. we believe in an american citizen -- american system where the government should be our servant. fundamentally different. [applause] they asserted these rights are unbelievable. that means no president, no judge, no bureaucrat can come between you and god and that is decisions are profoundly american and a threat to our civilization because the power in government to come in between each of us and got and

that is totally american and totally unacceptable in this country. [applause] among these, are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. a very key concept. happiness and 18th-century enlightenment meant wisdom and virtue, not hedonism and acquisition. you are not a guarantee happiness. you are guaranteed the right to pursue. there was no concept among the founding fathers that there should be happy this step is -- happiness stamps for the under happy. there was no suggestion we needed a federal department of happiness to the annual happiness' assessment. [applause] and, if you had said, that

someday a politician would walk into this room and say i am going to take from the overly happy and we distribute to the under happy, the founding fathers would have said what kind of arrogance would believe that someone to think they know enough and have the right to judge each and every american's right to be happy and then decide which ones they take from and which ones they give too. that is not freedom, that is a dictatorship. [applause] here we are. we stand at the edge and these young children will find out how much courage we have, how much

discipline we have, how willing we are to do what it takes. the fact is america hangs in the balance. those young men and women risking their lives across the planet deserves from last the kind of commence to reestablish the historic america based on a grant of power from god and to repudiate decisively once and for all the anti-religious bigotry and anti american bigotry of the elites have lost sight of who we are and what we do. thank you very much for allowing me to come here. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause]

>> we will continue with live road to the white house coverage with a campaign rally for rick santorum. he will address supporters at heritage christian academy in kalamazoo, michigan. that gets underway at 7:30 eastern on c-span3. >> and joining us is the chair of the federal trade commission, john leibovitz. here for the questioning is a reporter from the national journal and another from bloomberg business week. let's look at an issue many people have not been following closely -- a privacy bill of rights for online issues.

what did you present this week and why is it an issue? >> the commerce department and the white house came up with a privacy bill of rights which is about protecting consumers privacy and internet commerce. privacy and internet commerce. it is critically important -- most consumers feel very strongly that they want to have privacy protection on the internet and they are concerned about where their data is going and what people are doing with it. the white house plan envisions industry codes of conduct that would be enforced by the ftc. we at the ftc had a related idea we have been working on for quite some time called a "do not track option. they cannot opt out of advertising that they could opt out of being tracked and having

their data collected. industry has been moving forward and so has a standards setting body. web browser companies have endorsed the concept. we are making progress and hopefully in a few months, consumers who do not want their information tracked could push a button and opt out of tracking. >> how much of this will be done through any regulations and how much will be done by the industry regulating itself? >> at this point, it involves industry itself regulation. that is the approach we are pushing for. i think to involve people from industry and advertisers and internet companies, to realize the more trust you have in the

internet, the more people do internet commerce and consumers have trust when they can control their information. >> talk about what you like and how it deals with cowlick conflicts with the report he issued in 2010. >> i would say they are both complementary. the white house white paper is all about protecting consumer privacy. they try to do it through codes of conduct that will have to be implemented going forward. our efforts are twofold. one part is an enforcement and the other is policy-related. the other is policy-related. we probably bought more than 100 spam and spy where cases and scores of cases for people who violate the do not call registry. there are more than 200 million consumers registered on do not

call. also, a policy function that goes back to 1914 and we use that to think about privacy issues. we have called for three things. privacy by design, which means when you build a new application, put privacy in. nobody reads online privacy notices. we found a mobile notice that at 102 clicks to get through. nobody reads that and we should read it while they are driving. and choice. consumers should have the right not to have their information collected if they do not want to. we all understand that there is a thriving internet economy and it is incredibly innovative. no one wants to stop that and no one wants to stop the free

content and services provided by advertising. but your computer is your property. as one of my former republican colleagues used to say. people have their right not to >> it seems like there are two buzzwords here and i'm going to see if we can't explain both of them, self-regulatory which is what the industry is pushing, they're sort of implying to the white house, we're going to take care of themselves, we got it. a word showed up in the white house report which was stakeholder approach. it doesn't seem like the two of those are going to work well together. you have the industry taking care of itself. the white house says you get industry plus private watch dog groups plus congress getting together to figure out the best approach. it seems washington is where the stakeholder goes to die. >> i'm somewhat more optimistic than you are, brendan. look, i think people recognize -- look, industry can move faster when it wants to do

something and on the issue of consumer privacy, industry, consumer groups, agencies like the federal trade commission and departments like commerce all care about this. and i think so far we have made progress even though i would say there is some suspicion between some different stakeholders. let's say hypothetically consumer groups and the entertainment industry. we all move forward because i think it's pretty meaningful that the -- that industry has committed to protecting privacy online and they have committed to doing it, one of the part of the announcement that do not track, they're not only going to use the cookie-based system but they're going to honor the do not track header. so essentially, if you send out a note from your computer that

says do not track me, these advertisers will honor that, will honor that request and they represent 90% of the advertisements that we see online in the united states. so i like to think that these are not sort of two notions intentions but they're actually sort of paddling down the same river and that at some point in the not too distant future, we'll accomplish something jointly. >> do you think people are adequately aware the tradeoffs they make when they sign up for a social service that the information they put on there are tracked and collected? don't you think consumers are aware of that? >> i don't think they're precisely aware of what the tradeoffs are? >> and whose fault is that? >> whose fault is that? i don't know that it's necessarily a fault. i would say privacy notices could be cleared, that is one

part of our report. then i would say part of our law enforcement approach, right, we do enforcement, we do policy is when a company doesn't honor its c. when it says we're going keep your information private and then they make it public or semipublic, that's an unfair deceptive act or practice and we go after them. so in the last year, we have brought two major cases, one against google for starting privacy cases for jump-starting its buzz, google buzz of social network, it was fire attempt of a social network by taking private information on g-mail that they said they would keep private and making it public. we brought another case against facebook because, for privacy violations and both of those companies -- and the facebook order covers 845 million consumers worldwide, 200 million in the united states, about 650 million elsewhere and what it basically says to those

companies is you have to honor your commitments. if you don't, we'll put you under order. as part of those orders, if they want to change their privacy settings going forward, they have to give consumers an optin. >> another question which was that it seems like the language in both of those decisions, the facebook and the google decisions said that they shouldn't misrepresent what they're going around privacy. it seems her question went more to how they represent themselves. the real problem is what is the contract that you are entering into as you go on to a site and you log in and what expectations should you have of what they do, regardless of what they tell you? >> i think it's a very fair point. so, ok, first of all companies shouldn't misrepresent what they're doing, right. that's a lot of what we do when we go after companies for unfair deceptive acts or practices. the second thing is companies should have clearer disclosures. and so, for example, and that's one of the things we called for in our draft privacy report which we're going to issue in

final form probably in the next several weeks. the other thing i would say is that i think companies recognize and it's not bad to have sort of a little prodding from the bully pulpit of agencies like consumer groups that they need to do a better job. two weeks ago we released a report on children mobile apps. what we found were very meager privacy disclosures by the app developers and seemingly not well enforced by -- seemingly not well enforced by google which has the android app store and by apple. we have been talking to the companies. they're committed to doing a better job. yes, i agree with you that consumers should have better notice of what they're doing, notice of what they're doing, particularly when you're talking about something like kids' apps when you want a notice that is understandable. are you collecting my data? if so, what are you doing? >> the search engines in general, google has made a lot of money because of this and we

have all done the search for a product or service and we see the ads that pop up afterwards. how is this going to change the business model of a google or a yahoo! and the role that the government and f.t.c. plays in all of this? >> if the company commit based on the work with the white house and the work to not track you if you ask not to be tracked, my guess is it probably won't change their lives all too much. i'm not so sure any people will opt out. i like getting ads that relate to things i'm interested in. our sense is not too many people will opt out. the other thing is that these companies will have made a commitment. if they violate that commitment, that will be potentially a case for the f.t.c. nobody wants to do that. they will give consumers more choice. >> you talked about what you want companies to be more clear in their privacy policies. google has been clear in the

changes its making to its privacy policies on march 1. people have voiced concern about that, people on capitol hill. i know you can't get into the details of your settlement whether you're enforcing that, but do you have any personal concerns about the changes they're going to be implementing next week? >> other than saying that they have been clear and it's a fairly binary and somewhat brutal choice that they're giving consumers, i think i can't say much more and i'll just leave it at that, but we're aware. >> binary and brutal was plenty, perhaps too much. there is some tension in the market, though. you're suggesting that they be more explicit about what they do. i wonder if they were completely up front about google and football about what they're doing with your information, whether there would be a market at all. i wonder if i would sign up for a service in exchange for a freeway to get in touch with your family and friends, we'll going to sell information about you.

>> i'm not sure everybody is selling information about consumers, but i also think that companies gave clearer disclosures, and again, some companies do give pretty clear disclosures. in google in what it's going dog is giving a clear disclosure, consumers will be able to make a choice. maybe you have some competition over privacy policies which would be a good thing. would be a good thing. >> you worked for the m.p.a. for a while. is there a pocket of introducing a rating system? >> a rating system for privacy? i suppose that's a pocket. >> the idea behind the rating system is it provided clarity to people who were going to a movie. it's really hard to read a one-page privacy statement where a rating, a, b, c, d, would tell you. >> the question is who would run that rating system. we in the government would not

for a variety of reasons, we would not be the ideal rater of privacy policies because what we're good at is, i think, helping to develop model privacy policies and we're going to do that with companies and helping and enforcing privacy policies that are violated. i suppose if industry wanted to get together and come up with a rating system along the lines of the motion picture association, not with like an n.c.-17 rating on a policy rating but what private policies work, that might not be a bad thing. and maybe developing a model privacy that you can look at in one click or two clicks would be a good thing. >> we're still talking about a self-regulatory approach. the white house papers explicitly said legislation enforceable by the f.t.c. so how do you square that? >> two things. i don't think they're in conflict at all. so, first of all, if a company

voluntarily says i will protect privacy and they don't do it, then it's already enforceable by the f.t.c. and in fact on do not track, the better business bureau has an enforcement mechanism with some teeth, i believe, for enforcing do not track. we have a history with them of receiving complaints when they can't resolve them and having them resolve complaints. i do think that a self-regulatory approach can involve f.t.c. enforcement and i also think, speaking for myself, not the commission, i also think that, you know, privacy regulation has a case and if we could come up with a sort of, you know, comprehensive balance, congress could, a set of guidelines, that would probably be a good thing. >> how do you deal with industry codes of conduct that the commerce department will put together, how do you deal with the companies that don't

sign up for that? >> i think that's a very serious issue. >> silence from facebook on the date that this announcements came out. >> i don't think -- i probably shouldn't interpret of how that sounds, but, look, i think most companies want to do the right thing. i think they recognize that, i think they recognize that the more privacy protections you give consumers, the more trust consumers have in the internet, the more business they will do on the net and the more activities they will have. look, the notion of putting together the codes of conduct and the privacy bill of rights, it's not going to happen overnight and it's going to take an effort by industry, but i think when you get critical mass and they have the potential of commerce to get that critical mass, it will be

easier. when you set standards, there are always going to be outliars. we spend a lot of time as an agency going after the bottom feeders, right, and not necessarily almost never legitimate companies, but guys who are using the internet to sort of rip off consumers. we try our best to put them out of business and get as much redress as we can for consumers. look, i think this is not -- this is not a year when congress is going to pass a lot of legislation. maybe some of the privacy bills can move forward, but, it is a year where we should be working on privacy. the best way to do it is a sort of combination, i think, of government using its bully pulpit and pushing very hard for the best self-regulatory standards. >> to the point of the two earlier questions, how broad or how narrow will these rules or regulations be? can you give an example? >> well, one example that i think we're very intimately involved in and we'll see whether the commerce department

picks it up is do not track. i think the way that do not track is going to work, is that companies, the digital advertising alliance made up of 90% of all advertisements will give you two options. if you want to out out of tracking, one is there is a little icon on the advertisements, you can click on that icon, a few clicks away you can opt out of being tracked. another way is they'll honor what is known as the browser header, do not track me. that's the major news of the white house announcement on do not track because they hadn't been -- they had been reluctant to honor the web browser request not to be tracked. so you can say do not track me. your web browser whether it's chrome or mozilla fire fox or

apple's won't track you. >> a quick follow-up. will political parties and campaigns be exempt from this? will they have to apply by the same standards? >> if you ask not to be tracked, i think on through the browser header, i think -- again it's voluntary, so anyone cannot -- anyone can say i'm not going to agree to honor the tracking, but you know what that's a great question. i think if you do it through the browser headers, it's automatic for advertisers, but i would say it would be wise for everyone to honor that commitment because otherwise i think consumers will not be happy. consumers are voters. >> the do not call list exempts political parties in campaigns. >> it does, because of first amendment issues and because of congressional concerns, not because of the f.t.c. >> how important, how

significant was it that google said it would sign up to this initiative by the digital advertising alliance. they were one of the few that didn't support the do not track option? >> significant. >> ok. >> i feel the press conference which heralded do not track, we have been talking about it, but it feels like do not track is an answer to a browsing habit that is about three years old in the sense that more and more people get their information through apps and their mobile devices. there is a lot that can be tracked on your location and phone numbers and things like that. so i wonder -- it's great that this progress has been made on do not track, strit is onboard, but there is a whole lot of things that they can track that they're not talking about. how do you keep the f.t.c. from always fighting abuses that are three years old? >> well, there are two ways to do it. we're not a regulatory agency.

we're an enforcement and policy agency. so it's harder for us to set up rules in advance. some of what we do, you're right, is we go after bad actors. but our report on privacy, our privacy by design, more transparency, more choice for consumers, we set up what we think are our best practices for companies and i think that helps move the process along. when you bring a big case, i think that wakes up industry sometimes and so, and on apps, for example, some of the apps that we have looked at seem to be designated -- we looked at kids apps. some of them might be collecting information and they might be in violation of the childrens online privacy and protection act. the first thing that we wanted to do with our report is sort of a recall to the ecosystem, let's have better disclosures and let's make sure what we're doing is legal. the next thing we'll go back into the field and see if there are any violators.

it's a tricky question responding to how we make things better going forward as opposed to correcting mistakes a few years ago. we try our best using the tools that we have. >> on your privacy reports coming out in a few weeks, can you give us a preview what was is coming out? >> i think it will be consistent with what we advocated in the draft report with a little bit of changes. it's still percolating around the commission and commissioners are giving back comments. we got more than 450 comments, which is extraordinary for us, on our draft report and so we learned -- we did a lot of stakeholder meetings beforehands and workshops with consumer groups and technologieses. we learned a lot about putting out a proposal about what works and what might not work quite as well. it will be consistent.

it will call for the same principals. you might see some refinements in our final product. >> one of the goals of the administration's approach is 20 bring privacy protection more in line with european standards. it seems like a problem. jeff jarvis is a block bulldogger and he has a theory that americans are too private with their bodies and europeans are too private with their data. if we're going to bring our privacy standards in line with the europeans do we have to change culturally as well about how our data is protected? >> we're an independent agency. we sometimes cross-pollinate with the administration, it's more on policy matters than anything else. i'm not so sure that the -- that i would characterize the administration's position, i don't want to speak for them, as trying to bring us more into line with the european approach. but i would say this. with the european approach and the american approach are both

trying to do is to ensure a thriving, innovative internet but at the same time protecting consumer privacy. so they do it more by regulation and there is a regulation coursing through the european parliament now that is undergoing some changes, but is designed to protect consumer privacy. we do it more by enforcement. so again, we brought more than 100 spywear cases, we bring big cases in the last year against the largest social networks. they're intended towards the same and we have written policy papers. they're all intended toward the same goal. i'm not sure we're as far apart as some believe. >> one of the things that the europeans are asking in their changes is this idea of the right to be forgotten, that when you go online and you want everything gone, companies should be able to give you that. do you think that's an idea

do you think that's an idea that should be considered here? is that feasible? well, i would say it's an interesting question, certainly when you're dealing with kids who are online, they're incredibly vas i will in using the -- vassile about using the internet but not good judgment. we put out educational books to tell parents how to teach children about intent issues. sexting and sending emails that cause bitterness and tears down the road is a real issue. so particularly when it comes to children, the notion of the right to be forgotten is a legitimate one. i want to add one more thing which is in our settlement with facebook. one provision says that if you leave facebook, if you decide you want to stop your -- stop

use, you take as practable your information back. so that actually in a certain way is a right to be forgotten in our order. >> we have five minutes left. smart phones and what some states, led in part by california, to try and creel some of this, are there lessons that you can take away from what the states are doing? >> what california did last week with the smartphone companies i think is a real step forward and it's very consistent with some of the concerns that we had when we released our kids' app report of just two weeks ago. >> it seemed like the pattern in the last two years that a watch dog group points out something that a large company is doing and the f.t.c. follows up with an action and then corrects the behavior, which seems to show that those groups play a really valuable role in the process. how do you make sure as the industry and the ad industry

moves forward with the self-regulatory approach that the watch dogs are represented as well? >> i say a few things. i do think they perform an enormously valuable role. and sometimes, and the companies that are tarts and they know it, sometimes we're already doing an investigation. since we don't confirm investigations, we don't talk investigations, we don't talk about it and we'll get a petition so we'll already be looking at something. members of congress send us letters from time to time to talk about things we are looking at already. whenever we're thinking about an issue, an investigation, you look at the company, right. when a company is it potentially violating privacy or engaging in mortgage fraud or something like that. when it comes to policy, we always have a broad spectrum of stakeholders that we're consulting here. we want the best information we can from the smartest people who think about these issues. >> the senate is currently weighing whether to give you

another term at the federal trade commission. assuming they confirm you for another term, what do you want to do in your next term? >> i think, you know, one of the great things about the federal trade commission is we are as much about continuity as we are about change. during the bush administration we were bringing in antitrust cases and privacy cases. maybe that has changed a little bit, ramped it up a tad, but we are a very bipartisan consensus-driven agency. 95, 98% of our votes are 5 or 4-0. i think we will continue to focus on the things that we have focused on. consumer privacy is critically important. internet fraud and last dollar frauds, the notion of give me $5,000 and we'll take care of your mortgage in arrears or your credit card debt and then these companies take your money and do nothing and then health care as well. health care is 18% of our g.d.p. now. in most european countries it's

something like 9% where maybe it's not quite as good, but it's roughly comparable. the commission is spending a lot of time trying to stop what we call pay for delay pharmaceutical participants. they pay off the generics where the consumers are holding the bag. we're trying to restrict those deals. we have three hospital merger cases, some can be post-competence tiff. where going 2-1 in a city like albany, georgia, one of the poorest counties in america. that is problematic. we might take that case to the supreme court. we just sued to block a deal of two p.b.m.'s, omnicar and pharm some america. om my care pulled the plug on its deal. they were a p.b.m. largely in the skilled nursing home -- with skilled nursing home facilities. it would have been 60% of the

marketplace. health care is a big issue in technology markets as well. >> last question. >> google and facebook are staffing up in washington and a couple of policy success recently. do you see power shifting in a way away from telecomes and the film industry and toward online services? >> it's an interesting question, particularly in the post-sipa world. look, when you become an established country and particularly a major company in america, there is natural engagement with washington and so this isn't surprising. they're all hiring really smart people and they'll do a good job of representing those companies. when i worked on the senate >> you dish share committee, microsoft before we started doing hearings and before the case that the justice department had, two people in the washington office which was small for all of the things swirling around them. not surprising, nature of life,

people have the right to petition their government. >> thank you for joining us with the questioning and jon liebowitz, the chair of the federal trade commission, thank you for joining us on "newsmakers." >> thank you, steve. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we got started because there are a lot of conservative think tanks that work across issues, but before this, there had been no progressive thinking that works on economic policy, domestic policy. neera tanden on the mission of the washington-based think tank. >> we think there is often an ideology behind particular arguments that are made in washington with very little facts behind them. part of our jobs is to make the arguments and the factual arguments and the evidence-based arguments behind our own views.

i do think that sometimes, when the facts don't argue for our position, we reexamine those positions because we fundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> a look at the center for american progress tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q & a. >> joining us from michigan is nolan finley, he is the editorial page editor of the detroit news. good morning and thank you for being with us. >> good morning, steve, thank you. >> in your editorial online, you say thatroom romney stands alone among the republican primary candidates capable of winning the white house and more importantly, of leading the nation to a prosperous future. why? >> well, if you were hiring a president based on resumes or a candidate based on resumes, romney would be the choice. he has experience in running. the other candidates, rick

santorum really hasn't been in charge of anything. newt gingrich was obviously speaker of the house but in terms of nonpolitical experience and executive experience, romney is the clear choice in that regard. >> as for santorum, he doesn't have the broad appeal that a general electricity trat will have in november. he has a lot of appeal among the more conservative voters. that's what has given his him boost here in michigan. there are a lot of very conservative republicans in this state. but if you put him if a general election field against barack obama, i don't think he can bring in the independents, he can bring in the middle that republicans are going to need to win this election. >> following your endorsement,

the romney campaign sending it out to its supporters, but "politico" reporting with this headline that the detroit news editor upset over an edit over the romney campaign. explain what happened and what the romney campaign did. >> upset might be a stretch. i never said i was upset or expressed i was upset. when they put the editorial up online or when they sent it out in a press release, they use the more favorable excerpts. they didn't si they were excerpts, but they did use elip seize to indicate things were missing. more importantly, they did provide a length to the full editorial on line. as i told "politico" and other places, that was most important to us, that readers could hit the link and see the full editorial. we would have rather them print the full editorial when they sent it out. they say they don't do that. you know, we're good. >> in terms of what you have

seen in this race, clearly one of the major issues has been the president's support for a bailout of chrysler and general motors and now that infamous editorial by mitt romney, let detroit go bankrupt. how is this issue playing out in a primary? >> well, in fact detroit did go bankrupt. we did a poll we did a poll on this a week ago. most americans say it doesn't matter. republicans are on record saying they oppose the way the bailout occurred. of the four, mitt romney is the one whose position is most closely aligned with what actually happened. there was indeed a managed bankruptcy. now romney doesn't agree with a lot of things that occurred after the country took over the companies, and we don't, there's a a lot of uneasiness

in the way things progressed. we're all happy it's working out now and the companies are making money. romney made a bit of a pivot last week to look ahead and talk about the impact of government regulations and future regulations on the health of the auto industry. i think that was a smart move. >> let's take a look at the polling from michigan. this is the nbc news poll, this came out before the cnn debate last wednesday, so last week, showing that mitt romney was ahead 37% torque rick santorum at 35%, ron paul and newt fwing rich, who esen rrblely -- essentially are not campaigning in the state in the teens and single digits. what do you think has happened since then? >> romney may have picked up a little support.

this is a close race. that's reflected by the fact that the candidates are here, back here today, they'll be here monday and tuesday. they're spending a lot of time, particularly mitt romney, spending a lot of time in michigan. spending a lot of money in michigan he probably wish he is didn't have to spend. that suggest this is race is still very, very tight and still very much in play. >> let me share a couple of headlines outside of detroit. this is from the brand rapids press, mitt romney saying he would use money for amtrak and pbs to offset debt and deficit from the "lansing state journal," mitt romney making pitch to mid michigan voters. outside of detroit it can look like iowa among republican voters, do you share that sentiment? can you give us a sense of what the republican electorate is like in the michigan and the

independent voters who may have a chance to vote on tuesday? >> there's a strong tea party movement on tuesday and the press and often the candidates confuse the tea party with the religious right. they're not one and the same. you had the candidates in here early talking only about social issues, mostly about social issues. that started to change last week with romney's speech before the detroit economic forum and santorum talking about spending and taxes and what have you. the tea party movement is very much concerned with deficits, spending, taxation, and you're starting to see now the candidates realize that social issue message alone is not going to sway the voters here. they're starting to talk about the economy and starting to talk about deficits and spening. >> four years ago, you endorsed john mccain. mitt romney was in the race four years ago, what changed? >> it was a tough call back

then. when we made our call at that time, national security was the major issue in the race and we felt john mccain was the best candidate to lead us in a troubled world. we saw them in august-september, the race pivot toward the economy and you -- mccain famously said, the economy is not my strength. at that component, we wished we'd had romney as a nominee. i don't know what's going to happen this time. you've been talking about events in afghanistan. this reas could pivot away from the economy to national security. we're fairly comfortable that mitt romney could run a campaign and stand as a candidate in a national security election. again, the judgment, the maturity, the wiz come, if you will to leave the country and stand as a candidate if issues turn away from the economy and toward national security, international affairs. >> from "the washington post","

a scene from downtown detroit. they indicate that rick santorum and mitt romney trying to undermine each other with the conservative bona fides. all this ahead of the crucial primary on tuesday. their fortunes shifting with three days until the high stakes michigan primary. let me take this on two different equations. if mitt romney wins, even a narrow win in michigan, what does that mean for his canned tacy? >> it gives him a boost going into super tuesday. he can't lose michigan and not take a heavy blow to his candidacy, to his company. this is his home state. he's made it clear that he's from michigan. he's put himself here. if your home state doesn't vote for you, how can you expect folks in georgia or tennessee or virginia or elsewhere to vote for you? this is a must-win for him. that's why you're seeing him

spend so much time here. he wins here, he wins in arizona, i believe he gets the same kind of boost santorum got in winning those three meaningless primaries earl quer in february he go into super tuesday as a clear frontrunner with a very clear momentum. this is realy, i won't say make or break but this is a pivotal moment in his campaign. >> on the other side of the equation from the new york daily news, michigan do or die match, if he loses his native state, it's bye-bye candidacy. would you agree with that? >> not necessarily. it makeleses things a whole lot tougher. it might be bye-bye to his candidacy if he had a more viable opposition. i'm not sure that rick santorum or newt gingrich meet that test. i think you'll just continue to have a muddled campaign going out into super tuesday and to

the other primaries and this thing very well could end in tampa in august at the convention. >> the romney campaign tell regular porters yesterday and staffers that this primary could go through mid may and from "the new york times," rick santorum vowing to wage a long and fierce battle. they write, rick santorum said the race for the presidential nomination is going to go for a long time, he vowed to fight fire with fire against attacks from mitt romney. let me share with you this tweet and the moment you and others have been talking about since friday, mr. finley, how does an empty football stadium read to michigan voters? does it say loser? that a reaction to the speech on friday from forward field, a stadium that holds 65,000 people, fewer that 1,200 on the 35-yard line to watch the speech sponsored by the detroit economic club. and these concluding remarks by

mitt romney. >> i sure love this state. this feels good, being back in michigan. you know, the trees are the right height, the streets are just right, i like that most of the cars i see are detroit-made automobiles. i drive a mustang and a chevy pickup truck. ann drives a couple of cadillacs, actually. i used tv a dodge pickup truck, had them all covered. i want to tell you how much i appreciate this state this city, this country and if i'm lucky enough to be president of the united states, governor schneider will have a friend in the white house. >> your reactions to his statement? >> what is the right height for frees? we weren't aware there was a height for trees. listen, michigan understands what happened on friday.

nobody expected mitt romney to fill a 65 thourblings-seat football stadium. that luncheon was moved to ford field after the other venues, the detroit -- the other venues the detroit economic club uses sold out in 90 minutes. it overwhelmed these venue, they can hold 500 or 600 people, it went past that in 90 minutes. somebody said let's move to ford field and sell 1,200 tickets. the chairman of the economic center is bill ford jr. who owns ford field. it was never intended to be full. it was a good crowd, there was a waiting list. democrats latched onto the idea he should have filled 65,000 seats, that's absurd. it was a successful speech for him. i sat at lunch afterwards with a couple of fellows who work in the auto industry, work for a supplier, and i canned them about romney's position on the

bailout. they were completely opposed to his position on the bailout, disagreed with his depiction of how the bailout of the auto industry unfolded and then we said, then i asked them, well, who are you going to vote for on tuesday? they said, we're absolutely voting for romney. i'm not sure that disagroment on that position even in that speech has hurt his chances with republican voters here. >> one michigan voter saying that the trees near my house are a little too tall. i say that with humor. i have to go back in term os they have theatrics of having a stadium, we all understand it was sponsored by the detroit economic club but in hindsight, do you think it was a mistake for the romney campaign to put him in that situation in which there were empty seats and he was in the middle of a stadium that was essentially empty? >> well, again, were there empty seats? yeah, all 65,000 were empty because they set up 1,200 seats

on the football field. people thought this would be a nice gimmick, a nice venue. they could have move aid cross the street to the opera house or the music hall and the place would have looked jammed. in that sense, just from appearance' sake, maybe it was a mistake but it certainly doesn't reflect on his appeal here. that luncheon sold out in 90 minutes. he talked about being a friend to michigan a friend to reich snyder. this is a state that in 2010 elected a person very similar to mitt romney as governor and elected him by a large margin. a businessman, a venture capitalist, they are very much like-minded and michigan is strong for that sort of candidate. >> the editor of the "detroit news" joining us. we'll get to your comments in a moment. the obama campaign quick to jump on the headline that

caused attention in 2008 when mitt romney said let detroit go bankrupt, this is the latest from the obama campaign on the air in michigan. >> mad in america. for generations of michigan auto workers, it's more than a slogan, it's a way of life. but when a million jobs were on the line, every republican candidate turned their back, even said, let detroit go bankrupt. not him. now, a retooled, restructured city is back. because of the grit and sacrifice of michigan workers. >> don't bet against the american worker. >> i'm braung bra -- i'm barack obama, i approve this message. host: let me ask you to look ahead to the general election. say mitt romney is the republican nominee, is michigan in play for the republicans in the fall? or does this issue help the president more than it helps the republicans? guest: the issue helps the president more than the

republicans but michigan will be in play because mitt romney is from here, has a tremendous support network here, a lot of donors, good organization, but he also speaks to michigan values, speaks to michigan voters in a way, perhaps, that the president doesn't. the president won by 16% last time, he's going to be tough to beat, but tell me where gas prices will be in november before i answer that question with any authority. if gas prices top $4, top $4.50, head toward $5, as some are predicting, that's going to be a tremendous blow to the auto industry and it's going to take, it's going to cut into the sales of its most profitable vehicle the pickup trucks, suv's, just as it did in fall of 2008. that could be a world of hurt for the president if that happens. to let detroit go bankrupt, headline that the new york

times put over mitt romney's article, he never says the words in the article but you've got to live with headlines. that's going to have less impact on the industry long-term than if gas prices kill the most profitable vehicles and if the 64 miles per gallon mandate that the swradmrgs put in place forces automakers to make vehicles that the american public has shown no appetite for. >> nolan finley heck talked with him last week on c-span radio's "washington today." you been at the "detroit news" since 1976, so you're almost a native. >> it makes me very old. host: we go to cliff on the republican line. host: are you going to vote or have you voted already? caller: i'm going to vote. host: have you made up your

mind? caller: dave camp is my representative, but hearing your guest, i am not going to vote for any republican candidate if it's going to be the choice we are given, the top two. i lived in this state all my life, i look at the tax base situation, right now, we are on our way back, maybe. however, given the fact of how we're coming back, it's not due to recommendations of the two top candidates in view of the fact that a bailout occurred and the only person that has enforced that bailout was barack obama. in terms of barack obama, i disagree with almost everything he does however when i look at the coffers of the state, the base tax we would have without the auto industry, given mitt romney's suggestion that we do without, go into bankruptcy, this state would be in destitution, you think we have it bad now, you should see it if that would have happened.

i can't believe the guest of yours is stating that mitt romney is his reck menation to lead this state when mitt romney would have bankrupted the state and taken away the programs and necessities. the current governor is under a recall petition a supposed recall petition, waiting for the lapsed time to occur based on the fact of what he did with our economy, overtax senior citizens, who are fixed income people torque make up the difference that he had to -- because of the reduction of taxes to business. and the school industry, so to speak. host: i'll stop you there and give our guest a chance to recall. guest: let me correct one thing. there's no recall pending against governor snyder. there was an attempted recall that failed miserably and the truth is, the auto industry did go bankrupt. they did go bankrupt, just as mitt romney suggested it ought to. it came out of bankruptcy much, much stronger.

you've got to look at the process. there were a lot of -- the rule of law was tossed out in terms of secured creditors. the u.a.w. was favored. it was handled in an extraordinarily extralegal way. is it working now? yeah. were the have -- will the industry still be thriving five years from now? that depends a lot on government policies and how they impact this city going out. we asked at the time, did brauk brack save this industry only to kill it five or 10 years down the road? host: our next caller, claudia from farmington, michigan. we have a line set aside for those of you in michigan. if our lines are busy, send us an email or join the conversation on our twitter page. claudio, go ahead please. caller: thank you for taking my call. since we do have a republican governor who was touted as a businessman and romney is also

a businessman, why is running a business and running the government the same? isn't business for profit and what is the business of government? isn't it the people? host: thank you, claudia. guest: are they different? yes. running a business and running a government are different but you should have run something. you should have had some experience making tough decisions and managing an organization. in that way they don't differ. and the skills do transfer. not every businessman has made a successful politician, and not every politician has made a successful leader. we believe mitt romney has been both. he's been a -- he's run a state, run a political entity, and he's run businesses and he's been successful in both endeavors. host: joining us from denver, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning and good

morning to nolan finley are you there? host: yes, we are. caller: you mentioned gasoline price, my husband mitigating circumstance first husband, i've outhied four husbands, that were all smokers by the way, i never smoked but anyway mitigating circumstance first husband was on the national planning council for standard oil of indiana which became american oil and we went all over the -- we went to france in 1965 and other places all over. because oil company was trying to get the price up to what they were paying back at that time, i think it was $5 a liter but it was mostly taxes. you know, we used to put the tax right on the gas pumps. you haven't seen any tax on the gas pump for a long time they have federal tax on gasoline is 18.3 cents a gallon. now, in europe it's almost -- it's mostly tax and so people do buy the small cars. by the way, i live in denver.

the small cars are selling like hot cakes, i happen to drive a small cadillac but i live in a high rise building of wealthy people and they're driving priuses and small cars. but anyway, on the second or 14th day of february, i filled up my car at the station in denver and i paid $2.99 per gallon. in 2008, and i made a bet with my husband then, he was unaware of how oil companies operate, i said, they will have raised the price of gas because bush and chaney were in, both oilmen, it'll be $5 all through the summer and then past labor day and then it'll go way down because of the election. i won the bet. because the average price i have right here in front of me, the u.s. energy information administration's annual energy review and i watched it all

through the 30 years my first husband has been dead. host: i'm going to stop you there, thanks for making your point. we'll get a response from nolan finley with the focus on gasoline prices and the impact it will have in the general election. >> this is an area where i think blaukblauk is vulnerable and where -- where barack obama is particularly vulnerable. he gets a free pass when he said i didn't want gas prices to go up this rapidly, which suggests that ultimately he sees one of the answers to america's energy issues is much higher gasoline prices. then he made the comment about, you know, we'll make our fuel from algae. those aren't answers that americans who are out here paying an extra $10 or $20 or $30 a week or more at the pump can relate to. this is going to have a huge impact on household budgets as

well as the economy as a whole, particularly in a place like michigan which is very transit-dependent. everything gets delivered by truck here. host: headlines from this morning. specter got the support of the bush administration, and inside "the new york times" -- >> and i want to share what "the new york times" wrote, there's a growing sense among party leaders that the primary fight has gone on long enough and continued attacks by the candidates and their allies have steered the conversation away from the my and could damage the party's prospects in the fall. rick santorum addressed these

issues yesterday in troy, michigan. the former -- here's what the former senator had to say. >> every time in a primary, all the expert says elect a moderate, that's the only way to win. you've got to elect a moderate, otherwise, you know, we'll lose those key constituencies. ladies and gentlemen, we won the 2010 election because our people were excited about our candidate and they came out in droves and they excited the electorate to win this election. that's why we won. not because we compromised. how are we going to get, -- we need to worry about moderates and the issues. folks if you're a moderate, issues are obviously not the most important thing to you, otherwise you'd be in one camp or the other. that's why you're a moderate. and b, how many moderates have

you talked to who say this. i don't vote for the party. i don't vote on the issues. i vote for the -- person. who are you going to vote for? someone who their own party isn't excited about campaigning for? you going to vote for someone that says one thing one day, says anything that's necessary the next day to win? or are you going to vote for someone you trust, you may not agree with, but you know that they believe what they believe. host: that gives you a sense of what rick santorum was saying yesterday in a speech. the same venue when mitt romney spoke. a related piece from the new york post by jever rebells, a conservative republican activist and one-time senate candidate from new jersey, he writes --

host: social issues front and center with rick santorum. guest: i write in today's column that in the most economically devastated state in the nation over the past 10 years, you've got a candidate coming in here and the conversation, 2/3 of the conversation has been about social issues. i don't think social issues are going to decide the election in november. i would agree with the "times" piece that all of this preoccupation with who is more conservative on essential issues than the other candidate, all these nasty ads and the money that's been spent is hurting the republican party and will hurt their chances in november. you look at what's happened other the last month as these attacks have intensified. barack obama's position in the polls has improved against republicans. they are hurting each other and helping him and i don't think that's where you want to be going into march before a very critical election. and you -- republicans are

going to have to take a look at electability of these candidates. get behind one of the four and stop lusting after a candidate who is not in the race. you still have republicans, you know, lusting after mitch daniels and sarah palin and jeb bush and haley barbour. those folks had a chance to get in the race and didn't get in. it's going to be one of these four candidates and the republican party ought to start focusing on which one can win and start to build some support for that candidate. they are killing themselves in this primary process. host: your piece today is available online, you pointed out that the candidates have been too eager to take the bait, believing the only way to secure the nomination is to prove they are pro life and anti-gay. mary is joining us from oregon. good morning to you, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i wanted to begin with a comment on the ad for owaugh

martha you played quite a -- for obama you played wite a bit earlier and comment also on the -- what he did with general motors. was it not true that the shareholders of general motors were just screwed royally and that many dealerships were just arbitraryly shut down as part of that deal? and how is that good for america? >> nolan finley? guest: it's all true. that's what i was talking about earlier. the extralegal nature of this bankruptcy. mitt romney is right when he said this whole process was structured to benefit -- to the benefit of obama supporters. the u.a.w. came out pretty much scott free in this bankruptcy process. they were elevated above the secure bondholders, in violation, or what would seem to be in violation of bankruptcy law and what do you see happening now?

you have bob king, u.a.w. president, pledging to organize and train 100,000 of these occupy activists to deploy this spring and summer on behalf of barack obama and his mess abbling of class warfare. shareholders were wiped out. you had a c.e.o. dismissed by the white house. it was extraordinary what went on here. and the fact that we're sitting here today and the auto industry is thriving again should not be justification for the trampling of the law that occurred during this process. and there should be more scrutiny given to it. i think mitt romney is correct in raising those issues. host: d.j. is following up on your earlier point about what the candidates need to be running on. he said conservatives did a good job in 2010 based on a jobs platform, not social issues. guest: exactly. one of the reasons perhaps you don't see the tea party as

excited this cycle as you saw them in 2010 is that the debate hasn't focused enough on deficits and spending and i just find it unbelievable that the -- that the republicans have allowed themselves to be distracted toward social issues and away from the issue where they have the most veblet and the most strength and that is on spending taxes -- on spending, taxes, the economy. you can credit the fact of the primary process does give more influence to the further right elements of the party and it does allow sort of the fringe to have a bigger voice than it ought to have but if they don't get this conversation back on the economy, they're not -- they're going to lose. they don't have much choice -- much chance in november. >> coming up tonight on c-span, next,chance in november. next,chance in november.